Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[Athée]

The early church fathers separated by decades not centuries knew the authorship of the Gospel accounts and epistles. The only one in dispute being Hebrews.

Here is the testimony of the earliest church historians and theologians :

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-church-fathers-and-their-testimony.htm

I'm going to slow down on posting and take some time to read through that source you posted.im a bit worried that we are going to go back and forth throwing assertions at each other which, while fun, might not be the most practical way to have a discussion
That said, I am more than happy to read through sources you provide and will do my best to respond to them. It might be helpful, given the topic of the thread if you went and had a peek at OHJ to see what arguments Carrier actually advances as he is obviously a better source than I am on his own arguments and thiwr support.

 

[redleghunter]

You might be referring to the prophecy that tyre would be destroyed... But of course it never was

Alexander used rubble. Sounds like it was destroyed.

 

[Athée]

They do extensively. The heart of Acts and the epistles is Christ has died, Christ has Risen, Christ will come again. Refer to 1 Corinthians 15 once more.

As far as I understand the scholarship acts is Luke 2.0 so let's put that in with the gospels as far as authorship. In the epistles and gospels we have tales of a character that they are portraying as historical. Absolutely this is the case. But this is not the same as having evidence of a historical Jesus.

 

[Tree of Life]

Is it impeaching the gospels to say that we don't know who wrote them? That whoever wrote them were not eyewitnesses? That the authors don't tell us where they are getting thier stories and how they use these sources. It would seem to me those are all just statements of fact.

The Gospels are technically anonymous so they do not tell us who wrote them but there are compelling cases for ascribing the Gospels to their traditional authors. If we can ascribe them to their traditional authors then this means that Peter (eyewitness) stands behind Mark, Paul (witness of the risen Christ, friend of Peter and other eyewitnesses) stands behind Luke, John was an eyewitness and apostle, and Matthew was an eyewitness and apostle.

But even if we do not ascribe these works to their traditional authors then it's still clear that they all came from the first century. Combine this with the NT epistles which are mostly earlier than the Gospels and many of them come from eye witnesses like the epistles of Peter and John. If there was no such historical person as Jesus how could all of these documents possibly have come about from so many different sources?

As for the epistles they don't talk about a historical Jesus at all that I am aware of. Maybe I am overlooking something though.

All of the epistles explicitly speak of an historical Jesus.

 

[Athée]

Alexander used rubble. Sounds like it was destroyed.

This is a rabbit trail so I don't want to go too far down this but here is a link to a response to the propitious mentioned of you are to read it - it is definitely off topic though so don't feel like you have to

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Tyre

 

[Athée]

The Gospels are technically anonymous so they do not tell us who wrote them but there are compelling cases for ascribing the Gospels to their traditional authors

I am going to have to go look at this claim. I have not seen a compelling case but maybe I am looking in the wrong places. There was a link posted earlier that I will be following up on.

But even if we do not ascribe these works to their traditional authors then it's still clear that they all came from the first century.

I think there is some dispute about John possibly being later but consensus is absolutely that they were 1st C. But being early doesn't tell us much if they were not eyewitnesses (although earlier is usually better in historical records) and does make the details reported problematic.

If there was no such historical person as Jesus how could all of these documents possibly have come about from so many different sources?

This is a good question. I don't know if you have read the book OHJ from Carrier, but his thesis is that Jesus was thought to be a celestial being and that he was later written into history as a real person. So a movement with that as a foundation would have a reason for writing a variety of historical seeming texts.

All of the epistles explicitly speak of an historical Jesus.

Do they do so in a way that would falsify the thesis Carrier presents?

 

[redleghunter]

I just don't see how this is the case. First I have nowhere advanced a position from carrier dependant on archaeology. I was responding to the claim that there is more or as much evidence forJesus as for Alexander or ceasar.
So we have physical items bearing the name and likeness of Alexander that date to his time which as you said we do not have for Jesus. You mentioned art but I am unaware of Christian art dating from the time of Jesus that has his name and likeness. If we did it might settle this debate!

We do have His burial shroud :

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...elics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/

https://www.shroud.com/

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/early-christian1/a/early-christian-art

http://www.jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/

The greatest of early works outside of the NT are the voluminous works of the early church fathers :

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html

In addition to the writings there was established after the ascension of Christ His church. The accounts of the NT were not only written but also taught orally and passed done from bishop to bishop.

What is interesting is how these early church fathers used the OT and NT extensively in their writings which lends evidence of the early widespread copying of the autographs. Add to this these church fathers were spread out from Rome to Ephesus, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. And writing as contemporaries. I would gather Carrier omitted or dismissed this .

 

[redleghunter]

This is what I am saying. The evidence of place names, political leaders etc does not by itself constitute evidence for historicity. We could imagine a future culture excavating the ruins of new York and finding names, dates and other elements that are mentioned in the spiderman comics. This does not say anything about spiderman being a historical figure.

How many times must I mention the early church fathers, the Gospel and epistle writers themselves as quoting the eyewitness testimony?

You do realize from inception the Christian church was persecuted and or marginalized in the Roman empire for close to 250 years?

Anyone honestly approaching the above fact and the volumes of Christian writings surviving two centuries of persecution would be amazed.

 

[Tree of Life]

I am going to have to go look at this claim. I have not seen a compelling case but maybe I am looking in the wrong places. There was a link posted earlier that I will be following up on.

I would recommend reading a good Introduction to the New Testament for a summary of the scholarship. Carson and Moo have a fairly standard edition.

I think there is some dispute about John possibly being later but consensus is absolutely that they were 1st C. But being early doesn't tell us much if they were not eyewitnesses (although earlier is usually better in historical records) and does make the details reported problematic.

It would be significant that what appears to be narrative history appears so early. Especially if it claims to be from eyewitnesses. Especially if it is so rooted in historical places and persons that could easily be falsified.

This is a good question. I don't know if you have read the book OHJ from Carrier, but his thesis is that Jesus was thought to be a celestial being and that he was later written into history as a real person. So a movement with that as a foundation would have a reason for writing a variety of historical seeming texts.

What evidence does he have that Jesus was thought to be a celestial being? This, to me, betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Jewish mind.

Do they do so in a way that would falsify the thesis Carrier presents?

Jesus as a celestial being? For sure. See especially 2 Peter 1:16 and 1 John 4:2-3.

 

[Athée]

We do have His burial shroud

The links you posted on this demonstrate just how controversial that claim is. I certainly understand you reasons for wanting it to be true but the evidence simply isn't there. At the very best it is a shroud of someone who does at the time of Jesus, with no way to verify who it shrouded. At worst it is a fake or otherwise not related to our question.

What is interesting is how these early church fathers used the OT and NT extensively in their writings which lends evidence of the early widespread copying of the autographs. Add to this these church fathers were spread out from Rome to Ephesus, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. And writing as contemporaries. I would gather Carrier omitted or dismissed this .

I agree that this is interesting but you raised this point as an example of contemporary sources about Jesus and they simply are not. What do we actually have that was written by Jess's contemporaries?

 

[redleghunter]

I have I agree that the epistles have eyewitness accounts but they also don't have a historical Jesus. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts and we never know who the sources of the stories are.

How can you make the above statement when eyewitness accounts are given in the Gospels? Or perhaps you could give an example from another work of antiquity which satisfied your model for capturing eyewitness accounts. Here's what Luke did:

Luke 1:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4 NASB
http://bible.com/100/luk.1.1-4.NASB

Acts 1:

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
Acts 1:1-5 NASB
http://bible.com/100/act.1.1-5.NASB

 

[Athée]

How many times must I mention the early church fathers, the Gospel and epistle writers themselves as quoting the eyewitness testimony?

You do realize from inception the Christian church was persecuted and or marginalized in the Roman empire for close to 250 years?

Anyone honestly approaching the above fact and the volumes of Christian writings surviving two centuries of persecution would be amazed.

I do think the spread of Christianity, a small Jewish version of the mythic cult fad, into a dominant world religion lasting 2000 years, is amazing. That doesn't mean it is true.

You keep blending together your comments about church fathers, the gospels and the epistles and I think this is confusing the case you are trying to make.
The epistles do contain eyewitness accounts, but nothing about a historical Jesus that is not equally accounted for by Carrier's theory.
The Gospels are not written by eyewitnesses and don't claim to be, nor do they ever tell us where they are getting thier stories.
The church fathers are obviously not eyewitnesses and I am not sure what eyewitness testimony you are saying they quote, unless you mean the epistles which I addressed above.

 

[Tree of Life]

The Gospels are not written by eyewitnesses and don't claim to be, nor do they ever tell us where they are getting thier stories.

Luke 1:2
John 19:35
John 20:30-31
John 21:24-25

Now they could be lying, but don't say they don't claim to be eyewitnesses themselves or getting their info from eyewitnesses.

 

[Athée]

What evidence does he have that Jesus was thought to be a celestial being? This, to me, betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Jewish mind.

There is no simple way for me to summarize it. 900 pages! Worth a read though.

Jesus as a celestial being? For sure. See especially 2 Peter 1:16 and 1 John 4:2-3.

2 Peter is often considered a forgery, which makes that passage particularly ironic and 1 John is not reporting a historical Jesus, it is saying to belie erstwhile that you have to affim an earthly Jesus, which again is consistent with both historicity and myth hypotheses.

 

[Tree of Life]

There is no simple way for me to summarize it. 900 pages! Worth a read though.


2 Peter is often considered a forgery, which makes that passage particularly ironic and 1 John is not reporting a historical Jesus, it is saying to belie erstwhile that you have to affim an earthly Jesus, which again is consistent with both historicity and myth hypotheses.

Well of course. The texts that don't fit our views are always forgeries. 1 John 1:1-3 sounds pretty historical to me.

 

[Athée]

How can you make the above statement when eyewitness accounts are given in the Gospels? Or perhaps you could give an example from another work of antiquity which satisfied your model for capturing eyewitness accounts. Here's what Luke did:

Luke 1:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4 NASB
http://bible.com/100/luk.1.1-4.NASB

Acts 1:

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
Acts 1:1-5 NASB
http://bible.com/100/act.1.1-5.NASB

Right so Luke is not claiming to be an eyewitness and he is not telling us who his source is for this account he is writing.

 

[Athée]

Well of course. The texts that don't fit our views are always forgeries. 1 John 1:1-3 sounds pretty historical to me.

I absolutely agree. The point I am making is that 1 John fits both theories. Yes it could be saying affirm a Jesus come to earth because there truly was a Jesus who walked on the earth, or it could be the case that having historicity a mythic figure he wanted everyone on the same page.

 

[Tree of Life]

I absolutely agree. The point I am making is that 1 John fits both theories. Yes it could be saying affirm a Jesus come to earth because there truly was a Jesus who walked on the earth, or it could be the case that having historicity a mythic figure he wanted everyone on the same page.

Which is the simpler explanation?

 

[Athée]

Well of course. The texts that don't fit our views are always forgeries. 1 John 1:1-3 sounds pretty historical to me.

Do you agree that there is considerable debate about the authenticity of 1 John?

 

[redleghunter]

The links you posted on this demonstrate just how controversial that claim is. I certainly understand you reasons for wanting it to be true but the evidence simply isn't there. At the very best it is a shroud of someone who does at the time of Jesus, with no way to verify who it shrouded. At worst it is a fake or otherwise not related to our question.


I agree that this is interesting but you raised this point as an example of contemporary sources about Jesus and they simply are not. What do we actually have that was written by Jess's contemporaries?

Yes the shroud is controversial. Not because many claim it was Christ's but that no pious fraud in Medieval times could produce the scientific evidence left by the shroud. I once too just dismissed the shroud as a pious fraud. When presented with the irrefutable evidence the shroud has the image photo copied on the material. In such a manner no scientist has been able to reproduce the effect.

Who were Alexander's contemporaries? Yes his fellow generals and dewey eyed camp followers. Basically his disciples wrote about him. They were the best sources to do so as they ate, drank and fought and bled with him. There was no Christine Amapour following Alexander or Christ writing an unbiased fair and balanced report.

However consider the details the Gospel writers and later church leaders never redacted.

One disciple betrayed Jesus Christ. One, appointed to lead the 12 denied knowing Jesus not once but three times. The rest fled like cowards. That would be something a myth stealth writer would omit.

The hero in the Gospels is a man who does not own a home or land. Walks around the arid terrain. Does not seem earthly political or military power. Is crucified as a criminal in a sham trial.

Now if I wanted to create a myth, I would write about a handsome king who conquers the known world. Hey that sounds like Alexander.